Why I Don't Believe In Atheism's Creation Myth

[Philothei]

Mod hat on
​

A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Forbes.com

Several years ago, I came across Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's argument--that the biological evidence for Darwin's theory was much weaker than evolutionary biologists claimed--rekindled my doubts. Just how strong was the evidence that all biological complexity arose by chance and natural selection?

I read all that I could find. Johnson. Dawkins. Wells. Berra. Behe. Dennett. Dembski. What I found is this: The claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.

The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

I saw that Darwinism was a Potemkin village. But it wasn't clear to me why evolutionary biologists were so passionately devoted to such pallid science. The evidence that the Darwinian understanding of biological origins was inadequate has been in hand for quite a while.

Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn't scientists question Darwin's assumption of randomness? Why didn't Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery? Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?

...

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity--the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells--is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

Please stay on topic This is not whether or not there is a God or atheism and atheists. This is not the topic !!!!

Mod hat off
​

​

 

[Archer93]

Mod hat on
​

A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist - Forbes.com

Several years ago, I came across Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Denton's argument--that the biological evidence for Darwin's theory was much weaker than evolutionary biologists claimed--rekindled my doubts. Just how strong was the evidence that all biological complexity arose by chance and natural selection?

I read all that I could find. Johnson. Dawkins. Wells. Berra. Behe. Dennett. Dembski. What I found is this: The claims of evolutionary biologists go wildly beyond the evidence.

The fossil record shows sharp discontinuity between species, not the gradual transitions that Darwinism inherently predicts. Darwin's theory offers no coherent, evidence-based explanation for the evolution of even a single molecular pathway from primordial components. The origin of the genetic code belies random causation. All codes with which we have experience arise from intelligent agency. Intricate biomolecules such as enzymes are so functionally complex that it's difficult to see how they could arise by random mutations.

I saw that Darwinism was a Potemkin village. But it wasn't clear to me why evolutionary biologists were so passionately devoted to such pallid science. The evidence that the Darwinian understanding of biological origins was inadequate has been in hand for quite a while.

Why, when the genetic code was unraveled, didn't scientists question Darwin's assumption of randomness? Why didn't Darwinists ask the difficult questions that are posed for their theory by the astonishing complexity of intracellular molecular machinery? Why do Darwinists claim that intelligent design is untestable, and simultaneously claim that it is wrong?

...

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity--the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells--is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

Please stay on topic This is not whether or not there is a God or atheism and atheists. This is not the topic !!!!

Mod hat off
​

​

Good point, thank you.
The OP's quotation talks about Darwinism.
Darwinism doesn't exist. There is no ideology known to it's adherents as 'Darwinism'.
There is only 'Darwinian Evolution', evolution based on natural selection, and similarly there is 'Lamarckian Evolution', evolution based on externally acquired characteristics.
Lamarckian Evolution has been disproven, in the main*. Darwinian Evolution has not, although Darwin's original ideas have been closely examined and refined.
Darwin is not the be-all-and-end-all of evolution, and there are still areas of the matter that are not clear. However, the field of Evolutionary Biology is working on this. Creation Biology is not, as yet, providing any answers.
It's only, as far as I can see, pointing out the questions.
That's good - science thrives on having questions - but if Creationism can't come up with solid answers, it isn't good science, and won't tell us the first thing about what the Swine flu, for example, is going to do next year.

*Some research on the topic is still ongoing - however, the descendents of de-tailed mice will still have tails, while Lamarckian Evolution will predict that they won't. This is the crude form of Lamarckian Evolution of course, but it's a valid deduction from the hypothesis.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Yes. Please stay on topic.

 

[Cabal]

Yes. Please stay on topic.

What an off-topic post.

 

[Flatland]

then what good is evolution?

Evolution is good for explaining the diversity of life.

 

[Flatland]

Myth based science-fiction by a trained theologian is entertaining fairy tales but has nothing to do with actual science.

yeah...as opposed to talking snakes, talking donkeys, parting the red sea, and raising the dead.

Let's talk about fairy tales shall we?

You observed this?

We observe this in the fossil record as well as in genetics.

 

[Doveaman]

AoS, you don't believe in evolution because you know nothing about evolution

Is that the same as an atheist not believing in God because they know nothing about God?

 

[Cabal]

Is that the same as an atheist not believing in God because they know nothing about God?

Can't be a problem for some creationists - many of them revel in their ignorance. I'm sure they don't want to be massive hypocrites, after all.

 

[Flatland]

Is that the same as an atheist not believing in God because they know nothing about God?

God has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

 

[Doveaman]

God has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

 

[sandwiches]

Is that the same as an atheist not believing in God because they know nothing about God?

Do you REALLY want to learn about evolution, but are unable to because of a million made up reason such as "You don't have enough faith," "You don't really want to believe," "You must first accept that it's true," "You have to accept it without evidence," "It's not something that can be 'proven," et cetera?

If so, you and I are on similar terms; you on evolution and me on God.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

God has absolutely nothing to do with evolution whatsoever.

 

[Ayersy]

So, I ask... blind, or choosing to be blind? Or, is the Bible complete bunk?

The bible is complete bunk.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life and Mein Kampf are complete bunk.

 

[MoonLancer]

Is that the same as an atheist not believing in God because they know nothing about God?

and yet many people become atheists after being christian. They think they know god. Your belief is exactly the same as theirs once was. Indistinguishable between each-other from an outside observer.

In academics one can give an letter grade test on science. The same does not exist for being christian unless you count a test on theology, an which case most Christians would fail.

They are not comparable at all.

 

[Ayersy]

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life and Mein Kampf are complete bunk.

At least we know that those things happened, and we know the real authors of them.

 

[MoonLancer]

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life and Mein Kampf are complete bunk.

But let it be clear your fallacy to try and give relation to the two is also bunk. Dont make me start quoting Nazies and Hitler on how they felt what they were doing was Gods will.

 

[Exial]

The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life and Mein Kampf are complete bunk.

In your opinion.

The bible is fiction
The origin of species is scientific literature
Mein kampf is sort of a autobiography

My opinion.

 

[Flatland]

Amen to what?

 

[JustMeSee]

Exactly.

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis of evolution.


So evolutionist logic is that because I haven't done my geneology my great-great-great-great-great grandmother is a fish?

You're the one claiming my great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a fish.

Therefore the burden of proof is on you to name her and show me her fossil proving she was a fish.

Be careful about putting words in other people's mouths. No one wrote that your grandmother was a fish. You wanted a name for a common ancestor of dogs and cats. The other person did not know, and tried to help you understand by comparing it to knowledge of one of your distance ancestors' given name.

Do you not understand what people are explaining, or are you trying to be difficult?

This isn't even a matter of agreeing with what scientists believe about what they find in the fossil record. You should use evidence and faith to argue against evolution, instead of manipulating what other people say. It is a faulty way of debating.